New York’s Structured Settlement Protection Act Falls Within Scope Of ‘Applicable Law’ In Florida Protection Act Proceeding, Says Court

New York’s Structured Settlement Protection Act Falls Within Scope Of ‘Applicable Law’ In Florida Protection Act Proceeding, Says Court

A Florida court recently rejected a proposed transfer of structured settlement payment rights, on the grounds that New York’s structured judgment law barred the transfer.

The proceeding was filed by factoring company JLC Capital Funding, and sought approval of the transfer pursuant to the Florida Structured Settlement Protection Act.

The Florida judge ruled that the New York structured judgment law, Article 50-B of New York’s Civil Practice Law & Rules § 5041 et seq., fell within the scope of “applicable law” under the Florida SSPA’s definition of that term, where the structured settlement was an Article 50-B settlement.

The settlement of the personal injury claim by payee – who had moved from New York to Florida – was approved by a New York court.

And for that reason, not only did Article 50-B constitute “applicable law” under the Florida SSPA, but the New York SSPA also met the definition of “applicable law” under the Florida statute.

On that point, the court ruled as follows:

JLC has failed to comply with the New York Structured SettlementProtection Act (‘New York SSPA”), which by its terms applies to any transfer involving a structured settlement that (as here) was approved by a New York court (see N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-1701(o)(ii), and which also constitutes ‘applicable law”under theFlorida SSPA (Fla. Stat. § 626.99296(2)(c)), in that, inter alia, JLC failed to provide the Payee with a disclosure statement that includes price quotes from two annuity issuers that reflect ‘the current cost of purchasing a comparable annuity for the aggregate amount of payments to be transferred’ (N.Y. Gen. Oblig’ Law 5-1703(d)).

For more about the opinion in In Re: Approval Of Transfer Of Structured Settlement Payment Rights Between JLC Capital Funding and Ortega, Case No.: 16-CA-003649, 2018 WL 1896171, Circuit Court, Lee County, Fla. (Fla. Cir. Ct. Mar. 28, 2018), see this Secondary Insurance Market Blog post here  (Reardon Scanlon LLP Partner Pete Vodola represented the annuity issuer and structured settlement obligor in this matter.)

Comments are closed.